Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Petersko writes to mention a CNN article about an escalation between Peter Jackson and New Line that likely means we'll never see a Jackson-helmed "Hobbit" film. From the article: "In an interview with the Sci Fi Channel news service Sci Fi Wire, [New Line co-chairman Bob] Shaye said Jackson will never make another movie for the studio and said the filmmaker just wants more money. 'I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore,' Shaye said. 'He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars. ... Cheers, Peter.'"

Irrelevant. What's fair is that he gets paid what was in the contract. Doesn't matter whether that's 250 million, 10 bucks or a billion. If he thinks that dodgy accounting practices are responsible for reducing his cut, he has every right to challenge the accounting.

What's fair is that he gets paid what was in the contract. Doesn't matter whether that's 250 million, 10 bucks or a billion.It depends on yoour point of view. In Europe its a) not considered fair, and b) prohibited by our version of copyrigiht law. So e.g. if he indeed had made the movie for 10 bucks, a court would assign a suiting part of the revenew to him, of course he had to sue first... but he would always win.

OTOH, under which law did he sign the contract? US or Australian? Note: if he "earned" 250 m

But don't forget that profits from films and other forms of entertainment are often divided based on percentages. How can one be certain they're getting their contractually agreed-upon share without open and equal access to the financial numbers? Based on my reading of the various articles, that seems to be the core of the dispute. Peter Jackson's open letter specifically stated it's not primarily about the money... it's about fulfilling contractual obligations and receiving the (perfectly normal) right to have full access to the accounting information.

His suit is based on unfair practices by Time Warner. The movies made a crapload and the secondary profits the merchandising rights, which Jackson gets a cut of, were sold off to other Time Warner companies for less than they could have gotten.This is happens a lot with these giant places, they just sell the rights within the companies and don't make as much profit because they undersold it. This is the same crap that Fox pulled with X-Files having sold the syndication rights to FX for much less than they w

George Lucas even.. there are a lot of extremely good directors who are far more talented than Jackson... hope one of them get to do the Hobbit, then we might have better plot, characters and far, far intrusive CGI nonsense.

Eeeeeexcuse me? George Lucas is the grand-master of intrusive CGI nonsense. I'm not a huge fan of Peter's work, but compared to him, PJ is only halfway up the chain.

We'll look back at LoTR in a few years and say 'god, it looks so dated, those CGI battles are just crap', whereas no-one says that about the very first Star Wars.

Correct - they're too busy saying it about the new Star Wars movies instead. The old versions are works of art made as skilfully as was possible with the tools of the day. The new one, on the other hand... seriously, how can you whinge about CGI in movies at the same time as praising the guy who created Jar Jar Binks?

'He wants to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever he's suing us for. He doesn't want to sit down and talk about it. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars.

It would seem the disagreement comes over "creative accounting" practices over at New Line. It would also seem that Peter Jackson has already tried to "sit down and talk about it".

What's really sad is that Shaye is such typical Hollywood; he actually believes an ego-driven pissing contest is more important than creating good work, and paying artists what the contract specifies.

What's really sad is that Shaye is such typical Hollywood; he actually believes an ego-driven pissing contest is more important than creating good work, and paying artists what the contract specifies.

When you're the guy with the money, instead of the guy creating the art... yeah, that is more important.

The first rule of Hollywood is simple: they're there to MAKE MONEY. Hollywood always has been about making money, not making great art. People who want to tell a great story on a shoestring budget write novel

Anyone who complains about Hollywood producers trying to make, and keep, all the money they can needs to wake up.

So your logic is, if someone has a history of acting like a selfish jerk, you should just let them get away with it, because "that's what they do"?

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Jackson to make a Hollywood picture, in the knowledge that some people at Hollywood are dishonest sharks. If he then calls them on being dishonest sharks, more power to him.

Just because they always do it, doesn't mean it's right, or that they should continue to get away with it.

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.

A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done".

I don't know what the terms of the contract were, but if Jackson's contract calls for him to be paid more, then I'd say he's completely justified in thinking they owe him something after they've paid him a quarter of a billion dollars. That's why contracts are negotiated - otherwise he could have taken his business elsewhere. They can't retroactively say "We paid you $250 million and that's an awful lot of money, don't be greedy" if they agreed to $300 million.

His whole claim is that they defrauded him on millions based on merchandising and other subsidiary rights. If a contract is based on a percentage, and they ferried all these deals off to various companies that are *part* of New Line's enterprise, they pocket a pile of cash and he gets screwed, right? Right. The claim is more or less valid, no matter how greedy he seemed. 250 million? Pocket change!

It's common for movie studios to come up with fees that they charge themselves to make the bottom line whatever they want it to be. If they owe somebody a percentage of the bottom line, they are very good at making that number be as low as possible. The thing is that when you charge yourself a fee, you still get all the money. It's a ridiculous scam, and it seems to me like people in Hollywood are either too worried about the glamour, or are busy suing each other over it.

I don't know the specifics of this dispute, but I'd bet money that it boils down to "my contract says I get x% of this pool of money, and you are lying about the size of that pool of money".

Not really. That's why they have such a huge beaurocracy, paper filling, and banks of administrators and accountants.If they didn't have everything auditable, you can bet your behind the IRS would look VERY closely. And nobody wants a tax audit, they're painful and extremely expensive.Basic accounting is very easy. The difficult part is knowing enough about tax law (as of the current moment in time) to make use of various loopholes and sinks to make money disappear in a required amount.

I could be mistaken, but I was pretty sure that Peter Jackson is only suing to have an audit done, as his main allegation has always been that accounting practices on the previous LotR movies were a bit, er, shady.

Sure, he'll probably get some more money out of it (if he's right), but it sounds to me like New Line is attempting one hell of a mischaracterization...

I think you're spot on. From the e-mail that Jackson sent to TheOneRing.net:

"You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an un

Pretty much, and from what I've read (certainly I could have misunderstood) a Peter Jackson Hobbit movie is pretty much inevitable. The question is wether he does it for New Line soon, or (directly?) for the estate later. The question is how long would they wait after New Line finishes their Hobbit movie?Certainly if New Line really makes a real smash of a flick without Peter Jackson they may not bother.

It's a shame that you have to be such a run away success in order to have enough money to sue for what yo

It's a shame that you have to be such a run away success in order to have enough money to sue for what you are due.

It was on a different scale financially and quite a while ago but I recall a similar incident with the actor James Garner as the aggrieved party concerning a great deal of shady accounting (a claim that "The Rockford Files" never made a profit). But he had been in so many successful TV series that he had enough money finally to get his much delayed day in court and prevail. The people who were

Who says Shaye will be there next week? Things could change inan hour. An active lawsuit certainly affects business partnersbut the studios board just needs to make the tiny conceptualleap that another couple billion dollars is better than Shaye.

Please. Hollywood is known for, err, "creative" accounting practices, where a movie that makes piles of money is suddenly unprofitable because they've shuffled the money into other divisions of their own corporation, and now they don't have to pay people based on the amount of money that comes in.They've been doing this crap forever, and while Jackson isn't the first to call them on it, he's actually been successful enough recently that they can't just roll their eyes and dismiss him as a crackpot. Although

Ok, the story as I understand it now, or at least as far as it is reported in the various press releases.

NewLine has limited time left to produce the Hobbit, before the movie rights return back to another company. Peter Jackson is suing New Line because their own audit of Fellowship of the Ring came up with figures that didn't match what NewLine paid to them. Their contract has regulations for this , and since NewLine refuses give more insight into their accounting, they are left with a courtcase.

NewLine then tried to get Peter Jackson to drop the lawsuit by telling him "drop the lawsuit, and you can make the hobbit". This was refused by PJ in a public letter, who stated that he wouldn't want to invest time and efford into a new project while the courtcase is still unresolved.

NewLine can now make a Hobbit without PJ, or do nothing and see the rights to a valuable movie franchise revert to its previous owners within the not too far future.

Meanwhile, MGM holds the distribution rights for the Hobbit, and has already said on record that they would want Peter Jackson to direct the film.

Meanwhile, MGM holds the distribution rights for the Hobbit, and has already said on record that they would want Peter Jackson to direct the film.

In a movie trilogy such as LOTR with such a large cast, the director kinda becomes the Superstar. MGM knows this, and would have no problem raking in a few hundred million by getting Peter Jackson to do it when they get the rights back. For many fans and even normal people, Peter Jackson is LOTR, and New Line is foolish if they think that the majority wouldn't just dismiss it outright, even if a comparable director was at hand and they could convince those few of the cast to reprise their roles.

I'd probably wait for the reviews.I'm betting without PJ it would suck badly but if they got the director of the first 3 Harry Potters or some of the other recent fantasy movies that didn't butcher the source material it might not come out too badly.

PJ is a great director and respects the material.There are 5 billion plus people and many directors on the planet.PJ is not the ONLY great director who respects source material.

"Don't go see it, Peter Jackson didn't direct it." would be a common phrase if New Line did it. At least that's what I'd tell everyone that would listen.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Rings Geeks like us might hold that viewpoint, but the Average Joe who just goes to the movies to be entertained won't know or care who directs the movie (or movies, since it sounds like New Line has another movie planned to slot in between The Hobbit and LOTR).

Making gross (and I mean horrible) estimates, Rings Geeks might account for 10% of the movie-going audience. Even if every single one of them boycotts a non-PJ-made Hobbit, New Line would still do exceedingly well out of it.

Personally, I hope that everyone New Line approaches to direct The Hobbit tells them where to stick it, that the rights will revert to Tolkien Enterprises and MGM so that they get PJ to make it for them. Take that, New Line!:)

For anyone who's forgotten, it's not just Peter Jackson who questioned New Line's creative accounting over the Rings movies - In 2004 (I think) Tolkien Enterprises [wikipedia.org] also sued New Line for over $20 million in unpaid royalties for Fellowship of The Ring.

The LOTR movies are in the lists of top grossing films. Adding up the numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-gross ing_films [wikipedia.org] seem to indicate that ~3 Billion has been made. Assuming Jacking is getting a percentage of gross (if he was smart) would mean that 300 million would be ~10 % which sounds reasonable. Of course this doesn't include rentals and DVD purchases etc. which could easily be another billion.
$0.02

Movie studios do this kind of thing all the time. Frequently they give actors and directors "points on the back" which is supposed to mean a portion of "profit".

What the studios do is claim the film hasn't made any profit, and cite an enormous number of line items which cost the producers money.

What the studios have actually done is just shuffled money around: Spending in one place, and earning back somewhere else. Its an effort to avoid paying for those points.

Philip Henslowe: But I have to pay the actors and the author.Hugh Fennyman: Share of the profits.Philip Henslowe: There's never any.Hugh Fennyman: Of course not.Philip Henslowe: Oh, oh, Mr. Fennyman. I think you might have hit upon something.

Wow, that's a pretty big assumption. You think that PJ is using the exact same contract as the author of Forrest Gump did? What nonsense. He's not even suing for more money, just an impartial audit of New Line's finances for the movies. Given his behavior, and their behavior, I'd say that New Line is the sleazyn greedy bastard party in this dispute. If he wins this suit, and he's not entitled to more money, he gets no more money. If New Line is doing no wrong they have no reason not to allow an audit, as it

'Why would they want to have another $100 million or $50 million, whatever they are suing you tube, et al for. They don't want to sit down and talk about it. TWX thinks that the fans owe them something after we've paid them over FIVE billion dollars, helping TWX achieve a gross profit of 17 billion dollars. Cheers'

p.s. if then need a new director, try Robert Rodriguez. As wonderful as the panoramic were, the funky way the actors were shot, not to mention the random acting, was pitiful.

Slashdot karma be damned, but IMHO LOTR almost completely failed to capture that Tolkienesque feel that I get from reading the books.

As a Tolkien fan, it could have been far far worse, and it was still an epic movie-making acheivement. I enjoyed the films for what they were. Seeing a cave troll was neat and all, but that over-the-top style, blaring music, and constant cgi-on-steroids action missed the finer points of Tolkien's sense of history and especially language. For god's sake man, let's hear a riddle or two!

So I say let someone with a lighter touch try to capture the spirit of Tolkien on film for The Hobbit.

First off, we all know how corrupt the movie industry is, and I hope PJ nails those guys to the wall and gets his due. But that being said, I'd like to see someone else make The Hobbit. PJ made too many arbitrary changes to the story for me to truly enjoy his work. He's a brilliant director and makes lovely visuals, but shouldn't be doing the screenplays.

Fine, you go and make the twenty-six three hour movies it would take to truly bring to life the Tolkien vision then;)

People are making the mistake of comparing the books and films in a literal sense. The movies were never going to be able to do full justice to the vision, however I believe they are the only ones so far that have come within a mile of doing that.

I enjoyed the films and own the extended edition. That said, I was disappointed with Jackson's take. For me, the entire point of the book was the Scouring of the Shire and he left that out. I won't even go into how he butchered Frodo.

Saul Zaentz, the producer that the Hobbit rights return to very soon, has already publicly announced that he could give a crap what New Line does, (he sued them for dough back in 2004...around the same time the cast sued them for dough) Peter Jackson will be directing the Hobbit when the rights return to him whether New Line tries to make a version on their own or not. Obviously this can't be guaranteed, but I don't think it would surprise anyone.

New Line may have the production rights to The Hobbit, but MGM has the distribution rights. IT was MGM who approached New Line about doing the Hobbit movie(s), and MGM wants Jackson to direct. So does Saul Zaents.

IIRC, production rights revert back to Saul Zaents some time this year if New Line has not legitimately begun production.

Since MGM and New Line are partnering up to do the Hobbit (neither can do it alone, since the rights are split up), MGM could simply stall the process until New Line loses the production rights. Then MGM relicenses production from Zaents, asks Jackson to direct, and everyone is happy.

Except the fans (who may have to wait a while longer for a "proper" Hobbit film to get done), and Bob Shaye, who will miss out on the preciousss profitses from the Hobbit. He simply needs to STFU and allow the audits of the LOTR films to happen.

He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars

I like how the studio thinks the percentage that they agreed to pay him turned out to be "a lot" that they can reneg. And they keep throwing out this line about how much money he's made to kill people's sympathy for him. But, er, well, why should they get to keep the money? The fact is (at least from what I've read) is that they agreed to pay him on certain terms in the contract, and now they're whining because it was more successful than they expected. Which means they got more than they planned too. But the suits just don't like the idea of the grubby artist personally making so much.

This is total spin and should have never been posted on slashdot, my god.

Here is a link [showbizdata.com] with a statement from the real owner of the Tolkien rights saying that Jackson will definitely do the Hobbit. The rights for the movies revert back to him sometime within the next year.

You know if New Line gave $250 Million to a hobo as an act of charity then I think this numbat would have a point.
But they didn't. They gave it to Wingnut films, a business that they had signed a contract with.

You don't. Most people think Jackson was pretty much spot on in his adaptation. If anything, a new director, handpicked by the studio clowns, will be much, much worse.

Who wants to bet we'll see "younger, edgier" hobbits and a "rockin'" soundtrack. Justin Timberlake is getting some good buzz for his new movie. I wonder what his version of "The Road Goes Ever On and On" would sound like . . .

I think he's directed some good movies, the LotR trilogy included, but I don't think he was "spot on" in his adaptation. If anything, there were very significant plot elements for which he opted to "adapt" them as being completely opposite to what Tolkien wrote.

I'm not talking about things like amplifying Arwen's role throughout the trilogy or removing Tom Bombadil. Some things just don't play well on the screen, and it's understandable that changes were made (even if I'm not a big fan of those changes).

I'm talking about, among other things, completely reinterpreting a character such as Faramir, who was at his core good and uncorrupted by a desire for power, unlike his brother Boromir. Rewriting Faramir to attempt to deliver the ring to Gondor, instead of seeing it for what it truly was, demonstrated Jackson's (and Walsh's and Boyens's) ignorance of, or refusal to appreciate, Faramir's significance in the story. There was (supposed to be) no conflict in Faramir's mind between helping to save his homeland by destroying the ring and bringing home a prize to please his unappreciative father. He had long ago resigned himself to being considered weak by his father in comparison to Boromir, because his weakness in the eyes of his father - acting for the good of all rather than the glory of Gondor - was actually a strength worthy of his Numenorean lineage.

Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?

"Jackson claimed that Faramir had to be tempted just as everyone else who encountered the ring faced temptation, but that doesn't hold water - yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?"Wow, I missed the part of the movie where Faramir took the ring of power from Frodo and slipped it on his finger.

I don't entirely agree with the change in Faramir's story either, but the point of it wasn't that he couldn't resist the ring, the point was

I felt that it didn't really change anything with faramir. You do have to consider that the film was going to be seen by mostly those who did read the book. So the temptation of the ring needs to be more blatant. Consider that out of a cast of about a dozen protagonists we already have 2 resisting the ring. As well as 2 other incidental characters who ignore it's charms. Now shows a third who isn't power or special who also resists it and you kind of seriously deluted it's danger.

The temptation of the ring was so blatant it led to Boromir's demise. By making Faramir resist the temptation to take it back to Gondor from the get-go, Tolkien sharply contrasted the two brothers, something that was largely missing from the movie. Jackson could have played up that contrast even more with some dialogue that showed that while Faramir desired it as much as everyone else, he was willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good because he was a truly honorable person.

The temptation of the ring was so blatant it led to Boromir's demise. By making Faramir resist the temptation to take it back to Gondor from the get-go, Tolkien sharply contrasted the two brothers, something that was largely missing from the movie. Jackson could have played up that contrast even more with some dialogue that showed that while Faramir desired it as much as everyone else, he was willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good because he was a truly honorable person.

The connection between boromirs temptation and his death seem unrelated. Since it's his redeption that gets him killed. That and being ambushed by a dozen orcs. The arguement could be made that he wouldn't have been there had he not gone off for frodo but I think the link is non exsistant in the film and tenious in the actual book. They made a decision, I can see his point and so be it. You need ot be far more blatant in film then in writing. Perhaps they over did it, they might have been able to show the

"I'm not talking about things like amplifying Arwen's role throughout the trilogy"I recently rewatched the whole of LOTR on DVD and it'll be the last time I do watch it. And Arwen is the main reason for that. To be honest, once the initial CGI wow factor has worn off I find it a supremely boring, disjointed film, and Arwen is the main source of that boredom. I'm willing to bite the bullet and accept silly changes and dumbing down, like the cavalry coming to the rescue in TTT, but I can't accept being bored.

I'm talking about, among other things, completely reinterpreting a character such as Faramir, who was at his core good and uncorrupted by a desire for power,...

The thing is, books are omniscient. The author can occasionally spoon-feed the reader direct insight into a character's motivations and mental state. A sentence or two can convey immensities. A reader who gets confused can skip back a page or two, or stop and think for a few seconds.

Whereas in a movie the spectator has to infer it by being shown people doing things, in real time, with unstoppable story progression. If you do exposition, you either need a narrator to be set up and used consistently, or you have to make the watcher view the exposition through the lens of the character doing the talking. (Or, God help you, you can scroll text across a black screen. "It is the year 2147 and robots rule the Earth...") If the exposition is important, it has to be simplified and repeated to make sure the audience doesn't miss it. A flashback to Faramir and Boromir's boyhood could have been used to show their differences, but it would have broken the story flow and introduced at least two new (but not really) characters. Contrast that with how, upon Faramir seeing Pippin's uniform, the movie used a reminiscence to their youth instead of a flashback, which flowed well, burned only a couple of seconds of precious screen time, and gave a great deal of insight into Faramir and his essential humility.

He had long ago resigned himself to being considered weak by his father in comparison to Boromir, because his weakness in the eyes of his father - acting for the good of all rather than the glory of Gondor - was actually a strength worthy of his Numenorean lineage.

Faramir's actions in the movie clearly showed him to be good, not instantly and not starkly, but surely and strongly nonetheless. In his reflection upon the slain enemy, wondering if the enemy's duty and character were any less than his own. In the flashback to Boromir's lament to the king that "He tries to do well and you give him no credit." He held a sword in anger to Frodo's throat, with no possibility of the Ring escaping his grasp, then drew his hand back because the Ring was not his to wield. At Osgiliath, a trusted lieutenant reminded him of his supposed duty to bring the Ring back, and how failing that duty would cost him his honor in his father's eyes and his life, yet Faramir sent the Ring away with a smile and a clear heart, the cobwebs having been shaken away by the Enemy's hand. Likewise, his unselfconscious kindness and optimism with Eowyn were an echo of the grace of the kings of old; it is no trouble to imagine a prideful Boromir in the same circumstance snapping at Eowyn and raging at the wounds that keep him from battle.

Showing a story simply does not work the same way as telling it. That makes it different, not worse. And more's the luck, with this one you get both.

yes, Gandalf was tempted by it, Galadriel was tempted by it, but they both resisted - why couldn't Faramir?

A) He's a human, and as said in the prologue, men, above all the other races, desire power, and B) he did resist in the end, so what's the problem?

If you watch the documentaries on the extended DVDs they explain the changes to Faramir pretty well. The main problem is that after spending hours beating it into the audience's head that the Ring is the most evil thing ever created, and then to have a character say, as in the books, "I would not take it if I found it by the wayside" just sucks all the power out of the Ring.

Seconded. If his adaptation was terrible, because he is a terrible director, then, the books must have been 'terrible'.

Uhn? A bad director took a book, made a complete fucking mess of adapting it to a screenplay and in addition directed the resulting crap-fest badly, and so you think the fault lies in the book? How strange.

Jackson is a terrible director? I don't think so. What about his work on Meet the Feebles, Heavenly Creatures or even The frighteners? Also, he's a lot more than just a director. He's also a writer and knows a lot about cinematography and effects. Are you just basing your opinion on the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Sure, that's not his best work, but it's not his entire body of work by any means.

I admit that I've not seen Feebles, and the other two are better than his LotR; but they're still fairly bland. I get the impression from interviews that he does know a lot about cinematography, but he can't actually do it. I know a lot about art but I can't paint to save my life.

All the strong points of LotR (and there were many) were in technical areas like design. Anything Jackson himself touched turned to crap. Breakdancing wizards spring to mind. Dear GOD!

If you want to flame Peter Jackson you should at least do it under a handle with a reputation.

Anonymous Coward postings on the subject are likely to be dismissed as studio astroturfing, trying to head off fan pressure on the studio administrators through their product sales prospects and stockholder/board pressure.

Is it crazy to pay anyone millions of dollars for their work? Maybe, maybe not, but if a major company agrees to pay someone $X for their work and what they bring to a project it's utterly wrong to turn around and play the "you're being greedy wanting more money" card. If you agree to a deal with someone and they meet (and agruably exceed) your esxpectations then you should honor the deal, if you don't your a greedy slimeball who should be avoided at all costs.

New line agreed to pay Jackson according to some formula based on how well the movies did. Jackson is questioning their accounting practices and instead of turning around and saying "fine, look at the books, we paid you what we agreed to pay you", New Line has resorted to school yard tactics and they're basically calling him names. They have the information that could settle this case once and for all and the fact that they refuse to provide it makes it look like they do have something to hide.

You can lament that some people's salaries exist in a range that most of us can't even pretend to dream of, but think about what the big company is going to do to the average consumer if they'll turn on Jackson after he made them an amount of money that is many times greater than the what they paid him.

Repeating the same ol' dKos/DU/lib talking points about how bad the economy is, how bad minimum wage is, etc. will get you no where until you can put some data where your mouth is.

I completely agree with you, but you'd be amazed how many people will ignore data. I frequently find myself giving detailed, well supported data in arguments, only to have it completely ignored by people who know (in their gut) that they're right.

It works like this: Someone says "I'll give you $X to do this, You do the job and receive $Y. When they refuse to explain the difference you take them to court. The reason they get paid soo much, is supply and demand. If you make 3 movies like Lord of the Rings, you can ask for that much money.
It's called capitalism.

I totally agree about Bob Nardelli - what I've read about his resignation from Home Depot seems to indicate it came from the stock losing ground vs. a competitor over a six-year period, and you're right that most of us would simply be shown the door without a golden handshake for doing a poor job.

That said, this has absolutely nothing to do with Peter Jackson vs. New Line.

Signing a contract with somebody saying you're going to pay them a certain amount of money, then covering your tracks so you don't ha

That was his mistake. If you're ever in a position to negotiate a deal with Hollywood, never, ever, go for a percentage of the profits (or net). Go for a percentage of gross. Sure, it'll be a smaller percentage, but the number itself would be non-zero. (Consider if Stan Lee had a contract that said he got, say 1/4 % of the gross. He'd be owed $2 millon.)

As others have pointed out, studios have all kinds of creative accounting practises that will

It's not Peter Jackson the person suing New Line to reveal whether or not it's cooked the books (and it certainly looks like it has), it's Wingnut Films. Peter Jackson founded the company and I'm sure he owns a big chunk of it, but it's a company nevertheless. A company with shareholders and employees, people who have bills and rent and mortgages.

It looks like the issue is something like this.

Wingnut does a deal with New Line, something like "You lend us X dollars, and we'll make three movies that make you a whole lot more than X. In return, when other companies distribute and license the movies, the characters, the music, and all that stuff, you give us a fair share -- let's call it Y% -- of the money that you make, because after all we made the movies and did all the hard work. Deal? Deal."

Time passes. The movies are huge. They are, in fact, the most profitable movies in history. Rather than just getting back "more than X", New Line is getting something around "more than thirteen times X". Seriously. For every dollar invested, New Line is getting thirteen back.

So, after the chaos of openings and Oscars and awards left and right has calmed down a bit, Wingnut's accountants notice that Y% is turning out to be a lot less money than they expected. So much less that getting Y% is starting to look like a bad deal, especially given that New Line is laughing all the way to the bank. So Wingnut has a preliminary audit done of the first movie's finances, and it turns out that New Line is actually GIVING AWAY THE MOVIES FOR FREE because the partners and licensees it has signed up all turn out to be, surprise surprise, NEW LINE SUBSIDIARIES. And guess what Y% of FREE is. (note: the subsidiaries didn't actually pay nothing, but it was so much less than market value, it's basically the same thing. Especially when Wingnut's deal was based on market value.)

So the accountants alert Wingnut's executives to the fact that Y% of something that is being given away for free isn't very much. Wingnut's executives then go "Holy shit, are you serious? OK, New Line, we've got to have proper audits down, including the second and third movies, to see what the story is".

New Line: "Um, no."Wingnut: "Seriously guys, something's not right here, we have to go through the books."New Line: "No."Wingnut: "OK, well we'll have to get the lawyers involved, because this is starting to look really dodgy."New Line to the media: "PETER JACKSON IS A GREEDY MOTHERFUCKER AND WE'RE NEVER WORKING WITH HIM AGAIN"Peter Jackson: "WTF?"

Why do we allow our culture to pay people so much money while the minimum wage remains the same for 10 years despite a %400 increase in the cost of living? I do not blame the studio's and would certainly not want to hire him back again. For 1/10th the cost I could find a top hollywood director which has better talent.

Would you care so much if it was a $250 million dispute between Microsoft and IBM?
I doubt that Peter Jackson is personally being paid $250 million, and it's not going into his personal bank

I can not imagine ever thinking $250 million is not enough FOR MY OWN back account. It would be different if I owned a company but still that is more money than the GDP of some countries. Good god.

So, it would be perefectly OK to you, if you created a work that was worth $500 million - and then some shitbag Hollywood executive who had little to do with making your work then took the extra $250 million you were owed, and used the money to buy Ferraris and child prostitutes, while arguing "Hey - isn't $250 million enough for you?

Why do we allow our culture to pay people so much money while the minimum wage remains the same for 10 years despite a %400 increase in the cost of living?

Peter Jackson is famous for giving people a break. He has lifted many people out of near minimum wage work and given them creative and technical careers. That money is much

Why do we allow our culture to pay people so much money while the minimum wage remains the same for 10 years despite a %400 increase in the cost of living?

Because the people working for minimum wage don't contribute much to the economy. If they did, they'd be able to earn more money -- that's what money is, it's an abstraction of the value of the contribution you make to the economy.

Aside from that, as others have pointed out, this isn't a personal paycheck for Peter Jackson -- it's for a company fu

Why don't they just give him whatever he wants. It's not like they are going to lose money on another of those films.

Because what he actually WANTS is to have an independent third party to look at their books and decide what is fair (he probably believes they owe him money, but he said he would be happy with whatever the auditors decide).

It is common industry practice to shuffle expenses around from one department to another, so that on paper, even a multi-billion-dollar movie never makes any profit, so the studios get away without paying any royalties. If they gave him what he wanted, these practices would be exposed for all to see. This is much more than a few hundred million from one blockbuster movie - it is about similar practices from every blockbuster movie ever made. No studio in their right minds would dare to have this kind of thing become publicly known (or worse, proven so that all the people they have defrauded out of royalties be able to sue them over it).

>> It isn't injurious to me if it is bad, the one in my head is actually pretty good.Spot on! Movies can never replace "the theatre of the mind" amongst discerning readers. I watched all three movies - director's cuts, ALL the soundtracks - but it seemed like every-third-scene there was a "where the f*ck did THAT come from?"-type of plot-twitch.

I first read the trilogy 39 years ago and I revisit Middle Earth every couple of years and while I have my own preferred conceptions about the looks of the c

Just because someone voices an opinion that you don't agree with doesn't make them a troll. There's a certain amount of malicious intent behind a post that should be manifest before considering the poster a troll.

Erm, it's Peter Jackson's COMPANY doing the whining here, because the COMPANY (with all those people you say that made it successful) that didn't get as much as it should have, which affects those people you say made it successful. You know, the cast and crew?